Michele Bachmann Video No Illegitimate Health Care: Bachmann: No Paying Taxes

At a Saturday rally in St. Paul, Minnesota, with 4,000 present, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) was representing the future of the our country, which is you and me, mine and yours. She talks about the taxes in health care, which will be passed without representation if the bill is 'deemed' passed by the Slaughter rule. See the video below. This is a long video - 30 minutes, but if you watch it, you won't need your morning coffee or afternoon nap to revive your  faith in America.

Michele Bachmann

Pullout quote:

They don't scare us. They don't scare us. They're not to take our country!...They think they can force their will on 300 million Americans!

TPMuckracker charges Bachmann with calling for civil disobedience -- "a sitting member of Congress leads citizens in breaking the law." The point is, if health care is passed with the Slaughter Rule, it will be many sitting members of the House breaking the law of legislative process. Health care will not be law via the Slaughter Rule. Americans, Republicans and Democrats, will not allow this Congress to make law by 'deeming' it so.

From Bachmann

But mark my words, the American people aren't gonna take this lying down," Bachmann later said. "We aren't gonna play their game, we're not gonna pay their taxes. They want us to pay for this? Because we don't have to. We don't have to. We don't have to follow a bill that isn't law. That's not the American way, and that's not what we're going to do."...

"Because it's one-party rule now in Washington, D.C. Their Chicago tactics, their chicago friends, twisting Democrats' arms, threatening their own team members with ethics charges and a submission. This handful of people thinks they can enforce their will on 300 million americans? They're not gonna do that. This is dictatorial, what they are doing. We are not complelled to follow a non-law just because Obama and Pelosi tells us we have to.

"If they pass the bill legitimately, then yes, we have to follow the law -- until we repeal it. But if they pass it illegitimately, then the bill is illegitimate, and we don't have to lay down for this. It's not difficult to figure out. So if for some reason they're able to get their votes this week and pass this 2,700-page Senate bill -- if they get it, trillions of dollars is what it's gonna cost, when we didn't vote on it, we need to tell them a message: That if they get away with this, they will be able to get away with anything -- with anything. And you can't say you voted on a bill when you didn't because it's fraud. But we are not helpless here. We are not helpless, there things that we can do.

JOHN ADAMS: Be it remembered, however, that liberty must, at all hazards, be supported. We have a right to it because it came to us from our Maker, but if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us at the expense of their ease, their treasure, their blood.

Hot Air has a great quote from Steny Hoyer about "deem and pass," and how it "demeans democracy.

For Fun: Rush Limbaugh Caller: Obama Snookered Us: Man in Obama Audience Did Not Faint - he was Hauled Off?



Michele Bachmann Rallying Speech - Slaughter Rule is Fraud
Linked by DougRoss and Larwyn where you will find the best blog headlines" 

Related and Background:

 Bart Stupak: Pelosi 16 Votes Short - at least: House GOP to Force Vote on Slaughter Rule

Mark Levin on Why the Slaughter Rule is Unconstitutional: Levin Will take Slaughter Rule to Court Pelosi Will Pass Senate Bill in House: Slaughter Rule Ruled Out?

Mark Levin on Why the Slaughter Rule is Unconstitutional: Levin Will Take Slaughter Rule to Court

Mark Levin, a Constitutional attorney, as is Barack Obama, explains what is wrong with the Slaughter Rule, expected to be the vehicle that passes health care without both Chambers of Congress voting to pass it into law. Levin said if the legislation should become law through this process, he will be one of many to take it to Court, because it is blatantly unconstitutional, and essentially the same as declaring Martial Law. He ended his remarks by saying if health care is passed with the Slaughter Rule, he will be one of many taking it to court.

Mark Levin

Mark talks about James Madison writing the portion of the Constitution that governs how legislation becomes U.S. law. He points to the detail in the language, and specifics in the Section, and points out that  not everything in the Constitution is detailed, but this is, and for a very good reason...it deals with the laws of our land - "it goes to the heart of this Republic."

The following are Mark's comments. The passage from the Constitution follows his audio, which you can hear for yourself if you would rather listen than read, at The Mark Levin Show. [Note: if you are not familiar with the word 'fiat,' unless talking about the auto, 'fiat' in this case means obtaining a legal right through a short cut. It is Latin for "let it be done," undoubtedly used in Kingdoms all over the world.]

If this is done it will create the greatest Constitutional Crises since the Civil War. It would be 100 times worse than WaterGate. It would be law by fiat, meaning Government by fiat, because there would be no law - just fiat.

The mere discussion by leading officials in our Government of such a grotesque violation of the actual legislative function of Congress, puts us, ladies and and gentlemen, at the brink...at brink. This is why we Conservatives revere the constitution. This is why we stress that the Constitution's words have meaning, and historical context, and they need to be complied with, because otherwise it's anarchy, which leads to tyranny.

This is a crucial lesson for those of you listening, who aren't sure what your beliefs are, if you have any beliefs or don't even care. We have an effort underway, by one of the most powerful chairmen in Congress; a woman who heads the Rules Committee, who determines what goes to the House floor, how it gets voted on, who gets to amend it and all the rest...openly discussion gutting Congress...and if this is done ,this is about as close to Marshall Law as you will get.

Louise Slaughter from New York is discussing Martial Law. I can tell you, if they persue this process and try to impose this kind of law without actually passing a statute, I can assure you I will be in a race with scores of others to the court house to try to stop this.

I can't think of a more blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution than this, and the Liberal media has essentially ignored it. It's not only absurb on its face that these power hungry ideologues - "party-first," "country-second" types, would make the claim that the House voted on something that the House never voted on, is not only  absurd on it's face. It's blatantly unconstitutional.

End Levin's remarks

 U.S Constitution, Article I, Section VII, Clause II.


Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively...


Related and Background:
Pelosi Will Pass Senate Bill in House? Slaughter Rule Ruled Out?

Pelosi Will Pass Senate Bill in House? Slaughter Rule Ruled Out? Reconciliation a Shell Bill

With a "shell" reconciliation bill posted online last night, it seems everyone is agreed that the House must pass the Senate health care bill and send it to the President for his signature, before reconciliation can take place. In other words, you can't reconcile a bill that has not been signed into law. Intrigue looms, however, as Rep. Louise Slaughter's Rules Committee seems prepared to "deem the bill passed" without a vote (straight from Pelosi's mouth) - even though the Senate Parliamentarian says, no... 'deeming' a bill passed will not happen in the Senate. See videos below.

Louise Slaughter - The Queen of Deem

On March 12th Speaker Pelosi acknowledged the Parliamentarian's ruling and said she will pass the Senate Bill:

"...the Senate Parliamentarian as you have said, said in order for them to do a reconciliation based on the Senate bill, it must be signed by the President."

Nevertheless, the Senate bill is not signed by the President and Pelosi the word is, she is working behind closed door writing reconciliation legislation.

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) responded to Rep. Eric Cantor's question, and agreed with Pelosi: 

[CANTOR] ...that this House must pass the Senate bill first, it must be signed into law before the Senate can even take up the reconciliation package?

[HOYER]  I think the gentleman correctly states the Senate parliamentarian's position. and therefore I think

Rep. Paul Ryan also referred to the verbal comment made to Republicans from Democrat Senate Parliamentarian, Kurt Conrad. While Politico is saying Republicans misinterpreted Conrad's remark, Ryan doesn't see it that way, and it is reasonable to believe that Pelosi and Hoyer agree with Ryan.

Ryan said that the Senate parliamentarian's ruling that President Obama must sign a health care bill into law before the Senate can change it through reconciliation largely renders moot the attempt by Rep. Louise Slaughter to shield members from a direct vote on the senate health care bill. He said the idea would also violate Obama's call for an up-or-down vote. "that's not an up-or-down vote, that's sweeping it under the rug and into law," Ryan said:

From Politico, March 12th:

...it looks like House Democrats won't have to vote directly on a Senate bill they really don't like. The speaker hasn't made a final decision, but she told her rank-and-file during the meeting that the plan now is to craft a rule that would "deem" the Senate bill passed once they approve the package of fixes.

That means they would vote on the rule and the so-called reconciliation package, which would make changes to the Senate bill andonly requires 51 votes to pass in the Upper Chamber....

The question is, is Pelosi playing word games? She is saying the Senate bill must be signed by the President, but is she relying on the Slaughter made-up bill that the House can "deem" it passed without a vote?

Here is how the "shell" bill works. Philip Klein writing at The American Spectator says this is not the "actual reconciliation bill." He quotes Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) saying that this bill is a "shell" bill. Democrats will approve it, probably today, it will go to the Rules Committee, "be stripped," and then all the things they have supposedly negotiated will be added in.

Ryan says the process begins with the Budget committee approving the "shell" bill, then the bill goes to the Rules Committee. In the budget committee, Republicans are out-numbered 2-to-1, and do not have the votes to stop it. Republicans will not be able to offer any amendments, but can offer "motions to instruct the Rules Committee, which will hopefully show the outlandish maneuver Democrats are taking for what it is - unconstitutional. Illegal?

Ryan said that the Senate parliamentarian's ruling that President Obama must sign a health care bill into law before the Senate can change it through reconciliation largely renders moot the attempt by Rep. Louise Slaughter to shield members from a direct vote on the senate health care bill. He said the idea would also violate Obama's call for an up-or-down vote. "that's not an up-or-down vote, that's sweeping it under the rug and into law," Ryan said.

In The American Spectator piece, Rep. Ryan warned about focusing on reconciliation, which he says is a "distraction."

Paul Ryan's op-ed in today's Washington Post shows that nothing has changed and whatever you see in the 2309-page tome posted last night is up for embellishment or deletion.

Ed Morrisey, writing before it was clear that this is a shell bill, asked what the bill might contain that makes it ineligible for reconciliation and points out page 1557 of the existing reconciliation calls for the creation of a Comparative Effectiveness Center (panel) which finds ways to ration health care based on certain parameters, one of which in the bill is "Economics."  Much of the newly written bill will surely contain language from this one. We can count on the Comparative Effectiveness Center also being included.

Any part not directly germane to budgeting should, according to the rules, have to go through normal Senate debate.  Republicans will want to find as many of these as possible.

There is a post I think you'll want to read at Jus' Sayin'. Don't leave without taking a look at the very last statement on the page.

Hot Air has a quote from Steny Hoyer saying that "deeming" is demeaning to democracy.

Linked by The Thinker - thank you!



Pelosi says she will pass the Senate Bill in the House (video) Steny Hoyer says House must pass the Senate Health Care Bill (video)

Senate Parliamentarian Rules Obama Must Sign Health Care before Rule Changes or Reconciliation

The Senate Parliamentarian has a new ruling out today and it's an important one. President Obama must sign a health care bill before the Senate can act on a reconciliation package to fix the problems the House has with the Senate legislation. Once Obama signs the bill, it is law, and the House no longer has assurance that the items they want reconciled, will be reconciled.

Kent Conrad

The word from the Senate Parliamentarian, Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), was reportedly passed to Republicans verbally, and what if Republicans are lying, muses one online site:

Now, it's certainly possible that Senate Republicans are lying about this -- they're not exactly a truth-oriented bunch... Source: Washington Monthly

Senator Conrad's advice, to Republicans, if true, is consistent with his previous statements, and it is not good news for House Democrats who had had devised two incredible machinations - and who would think either could be legal?

(1) In the House, a process called Hold-plus-reconciliation, which meant the House would pass the Christmas Eve Senate bill but hold the bill, without sending it to the President for his signature, thus holding the Senate hostage to accepting changes the House needed to make the legislation palatable to its members.

(2) The Slaughter process: The House would create their own package of changes to the Senate bill, then skip a roll call vote to approve the Senate bill, attach their own package and call it a piece of legislation - without ever passing the Senate bill. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the Chair of the House Rules Committee is reportedly creating this new rule, which essentially says the unpassed Senate bill is "deemed passed."

If the Senate Parliamentarian holds that the Senate bill must be passed as a piece of legislation, and first signed by the president, before changes can be made, then neither of the two options above would be valid, as well they should not be.

Another stumbling block to those opposed to the bill is Joe Biden, who has the power to overrule the Senate parliamentarian, although that has not been done since Hubert Humphrey. If Biden should overrule the parliamentarian, the ruling can be appealed and the appeal is decided by majority vote (which doesn't offer much hope for the opposition).

This does not mean that reconciliation cannot be managed after the Senate bill is signed into law, but it's an uphill climb to get House members specifically opposed to federal funding of abortion, to trust that the Senate will actually make the changes. It's not over, but the Conrade ruling is a positive turn.

Others talking about the Senate Parliamentarian:
Hot Air 
Bloomberg